Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed the Bihar State Sentence Remission Board’s decision dated 12 September 2023, which had rejected the petitioner’s plea for premature release after over 19 years of incarceration.
Justice Sandeep Kumar held that the Remission Board’s order was arbitrary, non-speaking, and contrary to binding judicial precedents, particularly the Division Bench judgments in Ajit Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar. The Court reiterated that remission policies must be applied consistently and that authorities cannot deny remission by mechanically invoking vague or general clauses.
The Court declared that the rejection lacked reasoning and failed to appreciate that the petitioner’s case fell within the liberalized remission policy applicable on the date of consideration. It directed that if the petitioner renews his application, it must be decided within three months in accordance with law and the judgments cited.
Facts
The petitioner was convicted in 2006 under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and murder. He was sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Gopalganj, but his death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court in appeal.
After spending nearly two decades in custody — 17 years of actual imprisonment and 22 years with remission — the petitioner sought premature release under the remission policy. He relied on the 1984 Remission Policy, claiming that the 2002 notification could not apply retrospectively since it came into effect after his conviction.
His earlier writ petition (Cr.W.J.C. No. 103 of 2022) had already led to the quashing of a similar cryptic order passed by the Remission Board, with a direction to reconsider his case with a reasoned order. Despite that, the Board once again rejected his plea in 2023 without assigning proper reasons, prompting the present writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the State Remission Board erred in rejecting the petitioner’s plea without assigning cogent reasons.
- Whether the 1984 Remission Policy or the 2002 Notification applied to a convict sentenced prior to 2007.
- Whether the benefit of a more liberal remission policy prevailing at the time of consideration could be extended to the petitioner.
- Whether the Board was bound by precedents such as Ajit Kumar Mishra and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that his case was squarely covered by the judgments of the Patna High Court in Ajit Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar. He argued that the Remission Board’s reliance on Clause (iv)(ka) and (kha) of Notification No. 3106 dated 10 December 2002 was misplaced, since those provisions came into force only after 2007.
He asserted that under the 1984 Policy, convicts sentenced to life imprisonment could be considered for release after 14 years of actual custody or 20 years with remission, and since he had served over 19 years, he was eligible.
The petitioner maintained that the Board’s order was non-speaking and ignored binding precedents that recognized remission as an executive function subject to constitutional fairness under Articles 72 and 161. He urged that denial of remission solely on vague references to “heinousness” violated Article 14.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the petitioner’s offence involved kidnapping and murder — both grave offences — which brought his case within the prohibitive categories of the 2002 Notification. It maintained that such offences were akin to those listed in Clause (iv)(ka) — namely, rape, dacoity, and terrorist activities — and therefore disentitled the petitioner from early release.
However, when confronted with the High Court’s earlier rulings in Ajit Kumar Mishra and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the State could not defend the impugned order, conceding that the reasoning in those cases applied squarely to the petitioner’s case.
Analysis of the Law
The Court traced the constitutional and statutory foundations of remission under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution and Sections 432–433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that grant of remission is an executive function, but must adhere to principles of fairness and equality.
Citing Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961) 3 SCR 440 and Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 1196, the Court reiterated that while the power of clemency lies with the sovereign, its exercise must be guided by law and reason.
The Court analyzed the evolution of remission frameworks:
- The 1984 Policy permitted release after 14 years of actual custody.
- The 2002 Notification (No. 3106) introduced exceptions, barring premature release for convicts involved in rape, dacoity, terrorism, or similar grave offences.
- However, the notification was not implemented until 25 September 2007, as held in Surendra Mahto v. State of Bihar (2021) 4 PLJR 393.
Thus, for convicts sentenced before 2007, the 1984 Policy continued to govern. Moreover, under later amendments, including the 2012 Jail Manual and 2023 amendment to Rule 481, the scope for premature release was broadened.
Precedent Analysis
- Ajit Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar – Held that remission cannot be denied mechanically by invoking the 2002 Notification; convicts sentenced before 2007 are entitled to consideration under the 1984 Policy. It clarified that if a more liberal policy exists at the time of consideration, the convict should be given the benefit of it.
- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar – Clarified that offences not explicitly listed under Clause (iv)(ka) of the 2002 Notification (such as Section 364-A IPC) cannot be included by implication; the word “etc.” must be read ejusdem generis. The Court criticized arbitrary refusals of remission and emphasized parity with similarly situated convicts.
- Jagdish v. State of Haryana – Cited to reaffirm that clemency powers must be exercised for public purpose and with caution, not as unbridled discretion.
- Rajo @ Rajwa @ Rajendra Mandal v. State of Bihar (2023 INSC 771) – The Supreme Court reiterated that while the policy prevailing at conviction governs, if a more liberal policy exists at the time of consideration, it must be applied.
The Court found that these authorities squarely applied and had attained finality, leaving no justification for the Remission Board’s contrary view.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sandeep Kumar observed that the Remission Board’s order was mechanical, cryptic, and devoid of reasoning, merely quoting policy clauses without explaining how the petitioner’s case was covered under them.
The Court noted that earlier Division Bench judgments had already clarified that convicts sentenced before 2007 were eligible under the 1984 Policy, and even thereafter, the 2012 and 2023 amendments permitted liberal consideration. The Board’s failure to apply these principles amounted to non-application of mind.
The Court held:
“Remission is not a matter of charity; it is an administrative discretion to be exercised fairly and judiciously. The denial of remission cannot rest on conjecture or vagueness.”
The judgment further underscored that Article 14 requires uniform application of remission policy, and selective denial violates equality. The Court found the petitioner’s long incarceration — over 19 years — sufficient to entitle him to consideration for early release.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court quashed the Remission Board’s order dated 12 September 2023 rejecting the petitioner’s plea for premature release. It directed that if the petitioner files a fresh application, it shall be considered afresh by the Board in light of Ajit Kumar Mishra and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, and disposed of within three months.
The Court’s conclusion reaffirmed that the purpose of remission is to balance justice with reformation:
“When reformation outweighs retribution, the law must yield to humanity.”
Implications
This ruling has wide ramifications for life convicts in Bihar and other States, particularly those sentenced prior to 2007. It ensures that their remission pleas are not rejected on arbitrary or retrospective grounds.
The judgment reinforces that remission is part of the constitutional guarantee of fair treatment, not a concession. It also mandates that remission boards issue reasoned, objective decisions, considering both the convict’s conduct and prevailing policy.
By aligning with the Supreme Court’s liberal approach, the Patna High Court reaffirmed that rehabilitation, not perpetual incarceration, is the ultimate aim of justice.
FAQs
1. Does the latest remission policy apply to convicts sentenced before 2007?
Yes. The Court held that the 1984 Policy applies to convicts sentenced before 2007, and if a more liberal policy exists at the time of consideration, it should be applied.
2. Can remission be denied for heinous offences like murder?
Only if explicitly excluded by the policy. The Board must provide clear reasoning; it cannot treat all serious offences as automatically disqualified.
3. What is the time limit for the Board to reconsider a remission plea?
The Court directed that such applications must be decided within three months, through a reasoned and lawful order.
